p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7628 of 2026 Debasis Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. Ashish Kumar Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Settlement Officer, Cuttack and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 21.05.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through virtual mode. 2. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Shampur, the petitioner took steps to file appeal memo, which has been denied to be received. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in question, i.e., Plot No.687, Area of Ac.1.165 decimals was originally recorded in the name of one Sri Debendra Behera, which was settled in favour of the petitioner vide Sale Deed No.9229, dated 15.10.1988 for an area Ac.0.100 decimals. While the matter stood thus, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rental Colony, Bhubaneswar initiated a suo motu proceeding vide Objection Case No.7389 of 2013 against the petitioner without giving any opportunity to furnish documents in support of his possession and, subsequently, passed an order dated 15th July, 2013 observing that the property settled in favour of the petitioner is the Government Land without taking into consideration the Yadast published in the year 2001. 3.1. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Office of the Settlement Officer, Jobra, Cuttack through his Advocate for p. 2 filing an appeal, but the same was not registered. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3.2. He further submitted that the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar is the competent authority to prepare the Record of Rights in view of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, 1958. 4. Mr. Debashis Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate vehemently opposed for issue of such direction to the Tahasildar for preparation of Record of Rights in favour of the petitioner. 5. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and Learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Without entering into any factual controversy and without expressing any opinion touching upon the merit of the matter, it is felt that interest of justice would be best sub-served, if the petitioner approaches the authority concerned within a period of fifteen days with memo of appeal along with petition for condonation of delay and copy of this order, the said authority shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of three months thereafter in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER